^ 


T.€> 


Sr-i- 


%.. 


ft 


PRINCETON,     N.    J. 


\cJ6n/f^/  /y  Y\ .  XT\NJ\r  r(A^J\ 


Divisirii .... 
Section 


.    / 

Shelf. A'ninber. 


I 


/ 


^  ,^,/w  ^z:.^.--  /^  ^r •;/'^'' "!""/ 

^     .     ^ri^.— ''f'^-^■-^//^'/^'"^"'• 
/Xr7*  ^  -^  * 


THE 


i^  ^^ 


A    CHARGE 


CLERGY 


PROTESTAI^T  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


COMMONWEALTH  OP  PENNSYLVANIA; 


Deiitsred  in  St.  James'  Cuuhcu,  Philadelphia,  Mat  22,  1833,  at  the  openibg  of 

THE  Contention. 


BY  THE  RIGHT^REV.  HEJVBY  U.  OJVDERDONK,  D.  D. 

ASSISTANT  BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PUBLISHED  IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  A  REGULATION  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

1833 


THE 

RULE    OF    FAITH; 

A  CHARGE,   &c. 


My  Rev.  Brethren, 

It  may  at  first  appear  singular  that,  in  all  the  period  since  the  Re- 
formation, no  approach  has  been  effected  between  any  of  the  Protest- 
ant churches  and  that  of  Rome,  and  that  no  ecclesiastical  body  has 
found  some  middle  ground  to  occupy.  A  little  inquiry  however  will 
show  the  reason  why  this  separation  remains  undiminished.  The  two 
parties  build  on  different  foundations — the  Protestant,  on  scripture — 
the  Romanist,*  on  tradition,  and  on  scripture  as  interpreted  by  tradi- 
tion, that  sense  only  being  allowed  which  the  church  of  Rome  declares 
to  be  the  one  always  received.  The  one  takes  the  word  of  God  from 
the  mouth  of  God — the  other  from  the  mouth  of  the  church,  or  rather 
of  a  church,  one  of  the  several  churches  in  Christendom.  And  the  Pro- 
testant allows  an  appeal  to  an  authority  extraneous  to  his  own  party, 
while  the  Romanist  keeps  the  issue  before  his  own  party  as  the  sole 
judge.  It  is  not  wonderful  therefore,  that  even  three  centuries  have 
produced  no  approximation  between  these  two  portions  of  the  christian 
world. 

A  difference  of  opinion  so  decided  and  so  lasting  is  always  a  proper 
subject  of  consideration  by  either  party.  The  point  at  issue  is  con- 
nected also,  if  not  with^  all,  at  least  with  the  more  important  differ- 
ences between  us  and  the  church  of  Rome:  not  indeed  that  tradition, 
rightly  gathered  and  interpreted,  decides  for  the  latter;  but  if  scripture 
be  made  supreme,  we  have  "  walls  and  bulwarks"  for  our  faith  that 
are  more  secure  and  more  accessible  by  those  who  seek  their  defence. 
I  purpose  therefoi'e  investigating  this  fundamental  point.  The  Rule 
OF  Faith,  in  my  present  Charge  to  the  Clergy  of  this  Diocese. 

Protestants  and  Romanists  commence  their  controversy,  as  I  have 


*  The  author  begs  leave  to  disclaim  all  intention  of  giving  ofTence  in  the  use  of  the 
appellation  '  Romanist.'  On  the  principle  that  a  church  or  denomination  may  assume 
what  name  it  pleases,  he  would  wilUngly  use  that  of  Catholic;'  but  as  the  members  of 
tiie  church  of  Rome  claim  for  their  communion  exclusive  catholicity,  it  cannot  be  con- 
ceded. 


remarked,  with,  in  one  respect,  no  common  ground.  In  another 
respect  however,  there  is  the  one  which  no  human  intellect  can  justly 
decline — common  sense,  and  the  deductions  of  sound  reasoning.  To 
these  must  be  our  appeal,  in  trying  this  fundamental  issue. 

This  issue,  as  I  have  intimated,  is  concerning  the  authority  of  scrip- 
ture in  matters  of  religion.  The  Romanists  *'  admit"  the  scriptures, 
but  only  in  the  "  sense  which  the  holy  mother  church  has  held  and  does 
hold,"  meaning  their  own  church,  which  they  declare  to  be  "  the  mo- 
ther and  mistress  of  all  churches."*  Protestants  admit  the  scriptures 
without  this  authoritative  restriction  of  their  sense,  leaving  them  to  he 
interpreted  like  other  ancient  books;  the  sense  held  by  one  or  more 
of  the  Fathers,  by  the  church  at  large,  by  the  church  of  Rome,  or  by 
other  churches,  being  allowed  among  other  grounds  of  interpretation, 
as  past  or  existing  construction  is  used  as  a  help  in  expounding  works 
not  sacred. 

The  Romanists  "  admit"  also  what  they  call  "  the  apostolic  and  ec- 
clesiastical Traditions"  as  distinct  from  scripture,  and  placing  them 
first  in  their  creed. f  In  so  far  as  this  refers  to  the  evidence  of  the  ge- 
nuineness of  the  books  of  scripture,  this  part  of  their  creed  is  to  be  al- 
lowed, in  the  same  sense  as  the  tradition  is  to  be  allowed  which  attests 
the  work  of  any  ancient  author ;  there  being,  however,  much  more  and 
stronger  proof  of  this  sort  for  the  inspired  than  for  uninspired  composi- 
tions of  like  antiquity. 

And  here  I  may  first  notice  one  of  the  primary  arguments  of  the  Ro- 
manist in  favour  of  a  reliance  on  tradition — that  we  take  the  scriptures 
themselves  on  traditional  authority.    Such  is  the  fact,  yet  the  inference 
is  unsound ;  for  the  nature  of  the  sort  of  tradition  which  brings  us  the 
scriptures,  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  sort  of  tradition  which  is 
our  principal  subject  of  consideration.     Let  an  illustration  be  taken 
from  the  transaction  in  which  we  are  now  engaged.    Some  of  my  hear- 
ers will  probably  communicate  to  their  friends  the  substance  of  portions 
of  my  remarks,  to  them  as  yet  oral — but  will  they  not  be  liable  to  mis- 
take ?    the  contrary  is  not  to   be   supposed.     The  Charge,  however, 
according  to  a  rule  of  the  Convention,  will  be  published ;  and  there  will 
be  no  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  the  copies.     In  both  cases  there  will 
be  some  of  the  first  links  of  tradition :  yet  how  different  in  regard  to 
certainty,  the  links  between  the  speaker  and  his  hearers,  and  them  and 
their  friends,  and  the  link  between  the  manuscript  and  the  printed  edition 
— how  difficult,  to  verify  accurately  oral  communication — how  easy,  to 
verify  a  written  or  printed  document !  And  how  unsound  is  the  argument, 
which,  in  the  similar  cases  of  the  tradition  of  the  oral  gospel,  and  the 
tradition  attesting  the  genuinenessof  scripture,  would  ascribe  infallibili- 

•  See  the  Creed  added  to  the  Nicene,  and  set  forth  by  Pope  Pius  IV. 
t  See  the  Creed  of  Pius  IV. 


ty  to  the  former,  because  the  latter  is  next  to  infallible ! — The  funda- 
mental principle  on  which  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
received  was  not  the  comparing  of  their  contents  with  the  oral  tradition 
on  the  same  subjects,  and  allowing  their  authority  if  they  agreed  with 
it — thoush  this  might  have  been  to  some  extent  a  subordinate  test — 
but  the  notoriety  of  their  being  '  delivered'  for  keeping  as  of  inspired  au- 
thorship, and  the  proof  that  the  several  books,  or  the  copies  of  them, 
were  genuine.  After  any  book  of  scripture  was  once  so  delivered  and 
raceived,  its  acceptance  was  a  perpetually  visible  fact,  not  dependant 
on  hearsay  or  tradition;  it  maintained  its  standing  by  constant  possession 
and  constant  presence ;  and  the  only  subsequent  testimony  in  its  behalf 
was  that  of  the  correctness  of  the  successive  copies.  This  testimony 
was  thenceforth  the  only  tradition  it  required — the  testimony  that  a 
certain  hook  was  genuine — very  different  from  the  testimony  that  a 
certain  conversation  was  held  some  years  or  some  generations  before. 
The  authority  of  the  great  English  document  called  Magna  Charta  is 
made  evident,  not  from  the  tenor  of  the  conversations  or  negociations 
that  are  said  to  have  occurred  between  King  John  and  his  barons,  but 
from  the  tradition  which  attests  the  written  record  of  the  document  it- 
self. This  distinction  is  founded  on  the  nature  of  the  two  kinds  of  tes- 
timony, or  rather  of  their  respective  subjects,  the  difference  between 
which  I  shall  immediately  develop  more  fully.  And  to  say,  that  because 
they  both  are  tradition  they  must  be  equally  certain,  is  as  unsound  as 
to  say,  that  because  they  both  are  testimony,  they  are  testimony  of 
the  same  grade  and  value. 

The  oral  and  the  written  gospel  both  rest  on  the  fact  that  something 
was  "delivered"  for  keeping;  and  hence  they  both  are  called  "tradi- 
tions" or  things  delivered.*  The  proof  that  those  who  delivered  this 
gospel  gave  it  under  the  security  of  inspiration  constitutes  the  branch 
of  sacred  learning  called  the  Evidences  of  Christianity;  with  which  we 
have  at  present  no  concern;  our  discussion  being  merely  this — where 
may  the  tradition  or  matter  delivered  be  most  securely  found,  in  the 
scriptural,  or  in  the  oral  transmission  of  it,  which  also  is  called  tradition? 
There  is  no  doubt  thattheKoran  was  delivered  for  keeping;  and  though 
it  has  no  evidences  of  being  the  dictate  of  inspiration,  it  yet  has  been 
transmitted  a^  delivered.  Nor  is  there  any  doubt  that  a  rite  of  sacrifice 
was  anciently  delivered  for  keeping;  but  that  tradition  has  preserved 
it  faithfully  no  one  believes. — The  first  delivery  for  keeping,  whether 
of  the  written  or  the  oral  gospel,  was,  I  add,  a  very  superior  tradition 
to  the  tradition  which  keeps  the  things  delivered — the  one  was  the 
tradition  giving,  the  other  is  the  tradition  preserving.  And,  of  the  latter 
sort,  the  tradition  which  preserves  scripture,  or  attests  the  genuineness 

•  2Thess.ii.  15. 


6 

of  its  successive  copies,  is  very  different  from  the  tradition  which  pre- 
serves orally,  or  professes  so  to  preserve,  the  gospel  once  orally  delivered. 
Much  discrimination  is  necessary  in  the  use  of  a  word  of  such  various 
meaning.     (See  Note  at  the  end.) 

At  present  we  are  concerned  with  tradition  in  the  inferior  of  the  senses 
last  adverted  to — that  tradition  of  which  it  is  alleged  that  it  has  handed 
down,  by  means  other  than  the  canonical  scriptures,  what  Christ  and  his 
inspired  servants  taught  by  other  methods  than  these  writings.  This 
tradition  is  usually  called  Oral,  having  been  at  the  first  oral  chiefly, 
though  committed  to  writing,  or  said  to  have  been  so,  at  subsequent  pe- 
riods, by  the  Fathers,  by  Councils,  and  otherwise,  whether  partially  or 
totally  we  need  not  here  inquire.  This  tradition  the  Romanist  is  com- 
manded, by  the  Council  of  Trent,  to  receive  with  the  scriptures,  and 
"  with  equal  affection  of  piety  and  reverence." 

This  tradition  is  meant  of  course  in  the  declaration  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  that  scripture  is  to  be  admitted  "  according  to  that  sense  which 
the  mother  church  (so  called)  has  held  and  does  hold."  Tradition,  it  is 
said,  decides  the  sense  of  scripture — tradition,  as  handed  down  by  the 
church,  and  as  "  held"  or  declared  by  the  church  of  Rome  at  any  given 
time. 

Tradition  is  not  explicitly  declared  to  be  infallible,  in  the  Creed  al- 
ready quoted,  that  of  Pius  IV.  This  however  appears  to  be  meant,  as 
it  has  exclusively  the  office  of  interpreting  scripture.  And  Romanists 
affirm  that  it  is;  i.  e.  that  their  church,  acting  as  the  dispenser  of  tradi- 
tional light,  is  an  infallible  judge  in  matters  of  faith,  including  contro- 
versies about  the  sense  of  the  canonical  records  of  the  word  of  God. 

Such  an  assertion  is  different,  essentially,  from  the  one,  that  tradition, 
discreetly  used,  may  afford  help  in  interpreting  those  records,  as  one 
means  among  several. 

Here  then,  I  repeat,  is  the  fundamental  question — shall  the  scriptures 
be  interpreted  on  ordinary  principles,  including  tradition  as  an  aid — or 
shall  tradition,  as  recognised  by  the  church  of  Rome,  be  the  sole  inter- 
preter ?  This  I  regard  as  the  commencement  of  the  controversy,  because 
we  both  agree  to  "  admit"  the  letter  of  the  scriptures  acknowledged  by 
both  to  be  canonical.  The  mode  of  deciding  between  '  various  readings,' 
so  called,  and  the  question  concerning  the  books  called  apocryphal,  for 
none  of  which  a  place  in  the  New  Testament  is  claimed,  are  not  only 
secondary  matters  in  this  stage  of  the  argument,  but  cannot  be  entered 
upon  till  the  infallibility  of  the  church  of  Rome  is  established  or  refuted; 
for  on  this  depends,  in  the  Romanist's  opinion,  the  authority  in  these 
several  cases.  The  letter  of  the  canonical  books  allowed  by  both  par- 
ties affords  us  scripture,  to  be  compared  with  tradition,  and  to  be  ap- 
pealed to  concerning  the  claims  of  tradition.     At  that  point  therefore  is 


the  dividing  mark  between  our  agreement  and  disagreement — and  there 
begins  our  controversy. 

Beyond  this  point,  the  appeal  is  to  common  sense  and  sound  reasoning, 
there  being  no  other  common  ground.  But  before  proceeding  to  this 
appeal,  some  further  remarks  may  be  added. — The  Rule  of  Faith  pro- 
fessed by  both  Protestants  and  Romanists  is,  properly  speaking,  what 
Christ  and  his  inspired  servants  taught.  Tradition  therefore  is  not  in 
itself  a  rule  of  faith,  but  rather  a  rule  or  means  for  ascertaining  what  is 
the  Rule  of  Faith.  And  scripture  is  another  rule  or  means  for  ascer- 
taining what  is  the  Rule  of  Faith.  Is  then  tradition,  deciding  authorita- 
tively the  sense  of  the  letter  of  scripture,  without  permitting  scripture 
to  speak  for  itself,  the  only  or  the  best  means  of  ascertaining  what  Christ 
and  his  inspired  servants  taught?  Or,  shall  not  scripture  declare  the 
sense  of  its  own  letter  as  freely  as  other  books,  unfettered  by  any  final 
authority  from  without  ?  and  is  not  this  the  preferable  means  of  ascer- 
taining the  instruction  of  Christ  and  his  inspired  servants  ?  The  issue  is 
between  scripture  and  tradition,  as  distinct  and  opposing  claimants. 
The  Romanist  will  perhaps  allege  that  he  uses  tradition  and  scripture 
both ;  but  the  Protestant  may  say  the  same.  The  difference  is,  that  the 
one  makes  tradition  the  superior  instrument  for  reaching  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  while  the  other  makes  scripture  the  superior  instrument.  The 
one,  looking  to  scripture  for  the  letter  only,  and  to  tradition  for  the  sense 
of  that  letter,  regards  the  former  as  a  dependent  revelation,  useless  for 
christian  teaching  without  the  latter;  the  other, looking  to  scripture, as 
to  any  other  book,  for  the  sense  of  its  own  letter,  regards  it  as  an  inde- 
pendent revelation,  and  tradition  as  having  become  of  little  or  no  value 
without  it.  The  issue  therefore  is  between  tradition  and  scripture — 
which  is  the  most  secure  means  of  preserving  truth? 

In  entering  on  this  question,  Romanists  make  a  common-sense  appeal, 
in  order  to  prove  that  tradition,  of  the  kind  I  have  particularly  mention- 
ed, the  successive  instructions  of  successive  parents  and  successive  pas- 
tors, must  be  and  must  remain  correct.  Each  one  teaches  accurately 
and  faithfully  what  himself  was  taught,  and  thus  all  are  -taught  the 
same  things,  and  the  last  in  the  succession  receives  the  same  lesson  that 
was  revealed  to  the  first.  As  the  things  thus  communicated  are  exten- 
sively known,  their  notoriety  contributes  to  their  being  faithfully  trans- 
mitted. And  the  agreement  of  christians  of  various  countries  in  their 
traditions,  is  a  further  proof  of  their  genuineness.  Such  is  the  argument 
of  the  Romanist  on  this  point. 

The  Protestant  constructs  a  not  dissimilar  argument  in  favour  of 
scripture,  using  tradition,  as  I  have  said,  though  not  of  the  same  kind. 
I^cripture  is  transmitted  by  successive  copies  of  the  inspired  writings, 
each  transcriber  presenting  accurately  and  faithfully  what  is  contained 
in  the  manuscript  before  him.   As  the  copies  arc  numerous,  the  fidelity 


8 

of  each  fresh  one  is  secured  by  the  notoriety  of  their  contents.  And  as 
copies  are  made  in  various  countries,  their  agreement  is  a  further  proof 
of  their  being  genuine. 

Similar  as  are  these  two  arguments  in  their  structure,  the  quaUty  of 
their  respective  materials  is  very  different. 

It  is  not  true  that  tradition  is  the  same  among  churches  of  different 
countries.  For  example;  the  Greek,  Armenian,  Syrian  and  Coptic 
churches  do  not  agree  with  the  church  of  Rome  in  regard  to  the  tradi- 
tions before  us — that  the  latter  is  "the  mother  and  mistress  of  all 
churches,"  and  that  the  scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  in  that  sense 
only  which  she  "  holds"  or  declares.  All  churches  however  agree  sub- 
stantially in  their  copies  of  scripture. 

This  fact  shows  likewise  that  the  notoriety  of  traditions  may  be  much 
overrated,  or  that  it  does  not  make  their  conveyance  secure,  but  that 
spurious  traditions  (one  or  other  being  such  when  they  are  contradicto- 
ry) may  also  be  notorious.  There  is  no  fact,  however,  of  a  similar  kind, 
to  affect  the  value  of  notoriety  in  preserving  written  truth. 

The  remaining  point  in  the  two  arguments  mentioned  is  the  compa- 
rative fitness  of  tradition  and  scripture  for  the  faithful  transmission  of 
truth.  And  here  I  shall  offer  a  common-sense,  though  figurative  il- 
lustration, which  appears  to  me  as  just  as  it  is  apt. 

Tradition  professes  to  be  a  stream  from  a  fountain.  The  fountain 
was  the  oral  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  inspired  servants,  or  such  of  their 
teaching  as  was  distinct  from  the  scriptures  written  by  the  latter.  The 
stream  is  the  oral  transmission  of  the  things  so  taught,  or  said  to  have 
been  taught;  including  also  extra-scriptural  records  of  them. 

Scripture  likewise  professes  to  be  a  stream  from  a  fountain.  The 
fountain  was  the  written  teaching  of  the  inspired  servants  of  Christ, 
forming  the  christian  scriptures.  The  stream  is  formed  by  the  succes- 
sive transcripts  of  the  books  so  written. 

The  channel  for  the  stream  of  tradition  is  the  human  mind.  Each 
successive  parent,  pastor,  or  other  teacher,  transmits  it  as  he  understood 
it  at  first,  or  as  he  understands  it  afterwards,  and  as  he  remembers  it — 
an  imperfect  channel  obviously,  having  many  deviations  in  its  course. 
It  is  also  an  open  channel,  receiving  other  currents,  such  as  fancies, 
opinions,  and  prejudices  of  various  kinds,  at  every  point  of  its  progress — 
and  having  in  its  track  hidden  springs,  of  weak  motives  to  concede  or  to 
modify  the  truth — which  currents  and  springs  must  unavoidably  mingle 
strange  waters  with  the  stream  of  tradition. 

The  channel  for  the  stream  of  scripture  is  written  record — a  conduit 
or  close  aqueduct — which  admits  no  extraneous  waters,  and  has  no 
secret  springs,  and  through  which  none  of  the  original  supply  can  escape 
— the  only  exceptions  being  the  slight  accidents  that  are  incidental  to 
even  the  best  materials  and  the  best  workmanship. 


Regarding  this  illustration  as  a  just  one,  founded  on  the  comnnon-sense 
of  the  case,  i.  e,  on  the  obvious  nature  of  tradition  and  scripture,  we  see 
that  the  close  channel,  scripture,  is  a  far  greater  security  for  preserving 
the  stream  of  inspired  truth  pure  as  it  issued  from  the  fountain,  than 
the  open  channel,  tradition.  We  see  also  that  if  tradition  be  used  as 
the  sole  and  authoritative  interpreter  of  scripture,  it  brings  into  it  all 
its  mixtures. 

Another  common-sense  argument,  not  figurative,  may  be  deduced 
from  the  fact  that  tradition  and  scripture  are  both  preserved  by  succes- 
sion. 

Oral  tradition  is  preserved  by  the  successive  teachings  of  successive 
generations  of  men.  And  we  shall  allow  a  very  liberal  average  if  we 
say  that  this  teaching  is  responsibly  begun  at  fifteen  years  of  age,  and 
ended  at  sixty-five.  The  links  of  oral  tradition  may  thus  be  assumed 
to  be  fifty  years  in  length.  Of  course,  there  have  been  more  than  thir- 
ty-four links  between  the  death  of  St.  John  (A.  D.  100)  and  the  present 
time. 

Scripture  is  preserved  by  successive  manuscripts.  These  may  last 
many  centuries.  There  is  a  manuscript  of  the  bible  in  London,  and 
another  in  Rome,  the  age  of  each  of  which  is  estimated  at  from  nine 
hundred  to  fourteen  hundred  years,  or  more;  and  both  are  said  to  be 
still  in  good  order.  Assuming  an  average  liberally  small,  if  I  may  so 
speak,  for  the  duration  of  manuscripts,  we  will  say  they  last  six  hundred 
years.  The  links  of  the  manuscript  succession  are  therefore  of  that 
length — one  link  for  every  twelve  of  oral  tradition — not  quite  three 
links  between  our  age  and  the  death  of  St.  John. 

Scripture,  again,  is  preserved  by  successive  manuscripts  of  various 
translations,  some  of  them  of  high  antiquity.  The  links  of  its  succession 
become  thus  like  "  a  tliree-fold  cord,  not  quickly  broken." 

The  tradition  which  was  oral  at  first,  but  recorded  afterwards,  has  a 
mixture  of  links.  Assuming  the  year  of  our  J^ord  400  as  the  average 
dividing  point — am  1  not  gratuitously  liberal  in  selecting  so  early  a  date  ? 
— there  have  been  six  oral,  and  more  than  two  manuscript  links,  since 
the  death  of  the  last  apostle — more  than  eight  in  all.* 

Now,  it  is  a  dictate  of  common-sense,  that  the  fewer  the  links  in  the 
transmission  of  a  code,  a  creed,  a  body  of  truth,  a  collection  of  facts,  the 
greater  is  the  certainty  of  its  being  faithfully  done.     Scripture  then  is, 

*  A  venerable  friend,  to  whom  these  remarks  were  submitted,  before  they  were  de- 
livered in  public,  is  of  opinion  that  the  year  400  is  much  too  early  an  average  dividing 
point  between  these  unwritten  and  written  traditions  of  the  church,  and  that  the  year 
600  would  be  quite  early  enough.  This  date  would  give  ten  links  of  oral  and  two  of 
written  tradition — twelve  in  all.  It  would  produce  also  other  modifications,  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  next  paragrapli  of  the  Charge,  in  the  comparative  estimate  of  tradition  and 
scripture. — My  argument  however  is  strong  enough  without  this  improvement  of  it. 

2 


10 

by  this  argument,  twelve  times  more  certain  than  oral  tradition,  and 
about  three  times  as  certain  as  the  tradition  partly  oral  and  partly 
recorded.  Or,  to  state  the  comparison  in  another  and  juster  form — at 
the  date  of  the  assumed  average  dividing  point  betv^reen  these  two  kinds 
of  tradition,  the  year  400,  scripture  was  twelve  times  as  certain  as  tra- 
dition— and  since  that  time,  both  scriptural,  and,  such  as  they  then  were, 
traditional  writings,  may  have  transmitted  with  nearly  equal  security 
their  respective  contents.  In  short,  vary  the  statement  as  the  Romanist 
may  choose,  nay,  assume  other  numbers  as  the  basis  of  the  calculation,  it 
will  still  be  evident  that  scripture  is  a  vastly  more  secure  method  of 
transmitting  truth  than  tradition. 

Suppose,  again,  each  oral  communicator  and  each  transcriber  to  have 
had  an  equal  amount  of  human  infirmity;  then,  as  tradition  passes 
through  twelve  links  while  scripture  does  through  one,  as  there  are 
twelve  oral  communicators  for  one  transcriber,  the  chance  against  the 
evil  consequences  of  this  infirmity  is  twelve  to  one  in  favour  of  scripture. 
Moreover;  a  clear  and  accurate  mind  is  required  for  good  oral  commu- 
nication, whereas  a  very  inferior  understanding  is  sufficient  in  a  good 
copyist ;  manuscripts  therefore  need  never  have  failed  through  the  want 
of  competent  transcribers,  but  oral  tradition  must  often  have  been  in- 
jured by  incompetent  communicators  of  it,  whether  clerical  or  lay:  the 
weak  minded  may  sometimes  indeed  have  been  corrected  by  the  strong, 
but  this  could  not  always,  perhaps  not  often,  be  done  effectually ;  a.nd 
when  the  strong  minded  obtained  their  tradition  from  weak  instructers, 
the  corrupting  effect  of  a  vitiated  stream  in  the  choicest  parts  of  the 
channel  must  have  greatly  surpassed  all  possible  correction.  This  ar- 
gument, the  mental  qualities  required  in  the  two  cases  respectively,  is 
one  of  incalculable  weight,  and  it  is  wholly  in  favour  of  scripture. 

If  we  pass  from  common  sense  to  experience,  we  find  that  the  mere 
tradition  of  a  body  of  truth,  or  of  a  collection  of  facts,  has  never  remained 
pure  through  many  generations.  This  is  notoriously  the  case  with  the 
heathen ;  whose  ancestors  inherited  the  religion  of  Noah,  but  who  have 
held  their  tradition  so  badly  as  not  to  have  a  vestige  of  it  left  pure  at 
the  present  day,  in  any  of  the  numerous  forms  it  has  assumed;  nay,  who 
corrupted  it  so  early,  by  "  serving  other  gods,"  that  Abraham  was  cho- 
sen, as  the  instrument  for  the  preservation  of  the  truth,  no  later  than 
between  seventy  and  eighty  years  after  the  death  of  Noah,  and  between 
seventy  and  eighty  years  before  the  death  of  Shem.  Even  the  Jews 
"  made  the  [written]  commandment  of  God  of  none  effect  through 
their  traditions" — instead  of  interpreting  scripture  soundly,  they  de- 
stroyed by  this  means  its  true  sense. 

To  allege,  in  the  face  of  such  experience,  that  Christian  tradition  is 
secure  from  corruption,  is  equivalent  to  asserting  that  a  special  provi- 
dence, or  a  degree  of  extraordinary  inspiration  continuing  in  the  church, 
and  in  the  Church  of  Rome  particularly,  or  some  other  peculiar  divine 


11 

guardianship,  interposes  for  its  preservation.  Something  of  this  kind  is 
implied  in  the  theory  of  the  Romanists,  the  infallibiHty  of  the  traditions 
"  held"  by  their  church,  and  of  their  church  in  applying  them  to  the 
interpretation  of  scripture. 

One  of  their  arguments  for  this  theory  is  the  necessity,  considering  the 
disputes  among  christians,  who  all  appeal  to  scripture,  of  some  standard 
of  interpretation  extraneous  to  that  volume  and  not  fallible.  But  there 
is  not  so  great  a  necessity  for  such  an  earthly  umpire  between  christian 
parties,  as  for  a  similar  one — it  is  not  incumbent  on  me  to  say  how  it 
should  be  furnished — between  christians  and  infidels,  christians  and 
Jews,  christians  and  the  heathen,  in  neither  of  which  latter  cases  is  it 
alleged  that  such  an  umpire  exists :  the  differences  among  the  professed 
disciples  of  their  common  Lord  are  much  less,  and  of  much  less  import- 
ance, than  those  between  them  and  the  deniers  of  that  Lord ;  and  the 
argument  from  necessity  cannot  be  justly  used  in  behalf  of  a  less  exi- 
gency, while  it  is  silent  concerning  greater  exigencies  of  the  same  kind. 
Besides ;  the  assertion  of  a  necessity  in  the  case  is  gratuitous ;  it  takes 
for  granted  that  scripture  cannot  be  interpreted  sufficiently  for  the 
great  purpose  for  which  it  is  given,  the  salvation  of  men,  without  an 
appeal  to  some  other  and  infallible  standard :  the  insufficiency  of  scrip- 
ture for  this  end  must  be  proved,  before  the  argument  from  necessity 
can  be  raised.  It  may  also  be  considered  as  much  a  duty,  as  much  a 
part  of  human  probation,  that  the  christian,  though  to  err  is  both  pos- 
sible and  easy,  discern  and  believe  the  truths  contained  in  scripture,  on 
grounds  sufficient  though  not  beyond  fallibility,  as  that  the  infidel,  though 
it  is  both  possible  and  easy  to  remain  such,  discern  and  believe  on  simi- 
lar grounds  the  truths  (evidences)  which  lead  to  the  reception  of  scrip- 
ture: if  such  a  probation  is  proper,  no  argument  from  necessity  can,  in 
this  matter,  be  based  on  the  disputes  among  christians. 

Another  argument  for  their  theory,  of  an  external  and  infallible  stan- 
dard, Romanists  profess  to  derive  from  scripture  itself;  in  doing  which 
they  of  course  allow  th^^t  some  passages  of  the  sacred  volume  may  be 
understood  without  the  aid  of  the  supposed  infallibility  which  seeks  to 
be  substantiated  by  them.  In  other  words,  they  allow,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent, that  the  letter  of  scripture  may  receive  a  common-sense  interpre- 
tation, according  to  the  usual  laws  of  language  and  composition,  before 
the  infallibihty  of  their  tradition  is  established,  and  as  one  means  of  esta- 
blishing it. — Reaching  this  point  of  the  controversy,  the  Protestant  is 
secure  of  its  issue — as  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  prove. 

One  passage  of  scripture  appealed  to  by  Romanists  to  support  their 
claim  to  an  infallible  tradition  is  from  Isaiah,  which,  as  it  appears  the 
most  plausible,  shall  be  first  noticed.  "  My  spirit  which  is  upon  thee, 
and  my  words  which  I  have  put  in  thy  mouth,  shall  not  depart  out  of 
thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of 


12 

thy  seed's  seed,  saith  the  Lord,  from  henceforth  and  for  ever."*  Here  is 
the  secure  oral  teaching  of  Christianity,  from  generation  to  generation, 
says  the  Romanist.  This  we  may  allow,  and  yet  concede  nothing  to  the 
argument  for  tradition.  The  preacher  and  the  parent  who  teach  from 
scripture,  teach  orally,  as  much  as  those  do  who  teach  from  tradition ; 
and  this  passage  may  as  justly  be  claimed  for  the  former  as  for  the 
latter.  To  this  effect  St.  James  says,  "  ye  have  heard  of  the  patience 
of  Job,"  they  doubtless  had  "  heard"  of  it,  the  "  twelve  tribes"  addressed 
by  that  apostle,  by  "  w^ords  put  into  the  mouth"  of  successive  generations ; 
but  whence  came  these  '*  words,"  for  many  generations  before  the  apos- 
tle wrote?  chiefly,  if  not  only,  from  the  scriptures  of  these  "twelve 
tribes,"  several  other  parts  of  which  are  referred  to  in  this  epistle. 

Another  passage  to  which  Romanists  appeal  in  behalf  of  their  claims 
in  favour  of  tradition,  is  from  Malachi.  "My  covenant  was  with  him 
(Levi)  of  life  and  peace  ....  the  law  of  truth  was  in  his  mouth  .  ...  for 
the  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  and  they  should  seek  the  law  at 
his  mouth :  for  he  is  the  messenger  of  the  Lord  of  hosts."f  Here  let  us 
notice,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  passage  intimates  nothing  of  general 
oral  teaching,  but  only  of  oral  teaching  by  the  "  priests."  In  the  next 
place,  while  "  the  law,"  or  written  "  truth,"  is  declared  to  have  been 
"  in  Levi's  mouth,"  or  was  the  basis  of  the  oral  teaching  of  the  priest?, 
as  in  the  passage  just  quoted  from  Isaiah,  not  a  word  is  said  of  inter- 
preting that  ''  law,"  the  scripture,  by  means  of  tradition  particularly,  or 
indeed  at  all,  but  only  of  the  duty  of  the  priests  to  interpret  "  the  law" 
faithfully,  by  whatever  means.  In  the  last  place,  we  find,  from  the  next 
verse,  that  the  priests  failed  egregiously  in  this  their  duty,  and  of  course 
that  the  traditional  interpretation  ascribed  to  them  by  Romanists,  if  they 
had  any,  instead  of  being  infallible,  became  worthless — "but  ye 
(priests)  are  departed  out  of  the  way;  ye  have  caused  many  to  stumble 
at  the  law ;  ye  have  corrupted  the  covenant  of  Levi,  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts."  How  important  must  it  be,  when  the  appointed  teachers  of 
God's  truth  thus  "  depart"  from  it,  to  have  "  the  volume  of  the  book," 
never  materially  corrupted,  to  bring  back  them  and  their  flocks  to  that 
truth  in  its  soundness  and  purity! 

Yet  another  scripture  appealed  to  by  Romanists  is  entitled  to  our 
notice.  "  Go  ye,  teach  all  nations  ....  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. "J  This  part  of  the  apostolic  commis- 
sion declares  that  the  Saviour  would  always  be  with  his  apostles  and 
the  apostolic  ministry;  audit  implies  that  he  would  always  be  with 
their  "  teaching."  Here  however  let  us  remark,  that  no  one,  whatever 
be  his  theory  of  the  sacred  commission,  can  allege  that  Christ  promised 

■♦    Isaiah  lix.  21.  f   Mai.  ii,  5,  6,  7.  +   Math,  xxvili.  19,  20. 


13 

to  be  with  the  teaching  of  every  individual  in  that  nninistry,  since  "false 
apostles"  and  "  false  teachers"  are  several  times  mentioned  in  scripture. 
As  little  does  the  promise  apply  to  traditional  more  than  to  scriptural 
teaching,  whether  by  the  apostles  or  future  ministers,  for  not  a  hint  is 
there  to  that  effect.  Neither  is  there  a  hint  that  tradition  was  to  be 
the  sole  or  supreme  interpreter  of  holy  writ.  Apostolical  teaching  was, 
and  is,  and  will  ever  be,  secure :  but  of  that  teaching  scripture  was 
soon  made  the  prominent  branch,  as  I  shall  immediately  prove ;  and  it 
has  become,  through  the  natural  failure  of  tradition,  already  illustrated 
in  part,  and  to  be  fully  exemplified  as  we  proceed,  the  only  teaching  to 
be  relied  on  as  apostolical. 

We  are  now  prepared  for  another  stage  of  our  argument.  If  Ro- 
manists use  the  scriptures  to  prove  that  a  special  providence,  or  con- 
tinued inspiration,  was  pledged  for  maintaining  the  absolute  purity  of 
their  tradition,  or  to  substantiate  in  any  other  way  the  exclusive  right 
of  their  church  to  interpret  scripture  by  tradition,  we  may  use  the  same 
scriptures  to  prove  that  no  such  providence  or  inspiration  was  vouch- 
safed, or  was  intended  to  be,  and  to  disprove  the  alleged  right  in  what- 
ever shape  it  may  seek  support  from  these  writings.  If  they  read  the 
scriptures  with  the  eyes  of  common  sense,  to  search  for  the  prerogative 
of  reading  them  with  the  eyes  of  their  church  and  tradition  only,  we 
may  do  the  same  to  show  that  no  such  prerogative  can  be  there  found. 
This  is  the  branch  of  our  argument  now  before  us. 

The  oral  instruction  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  was  a  pure  fountain. 
But  the  traditional  channel  sometimes  betrayed  its  imperfection  almost 
as  soon  as  the  apostolic  teachers  had  left  their  scholars ;  and  those  in- 
spired men  gave  them  scripture,  both  for  the  support  of  tradition  as  far 
as  it  remained  sound,  and  for  the  rectification  of  the  mistakes  fallen  into 
through  its  inadequacy.  The  earliest  tradition,  therefore,  excellent  and 
valuable  as  it  was,  being  the  first  link  from  inspired  teaching,  was  not 
deemed  infallible  by  the  apostles,  or  the  subject  of  a  special  providence, 
or  of  any  other  special  interposition,  that  would  make  it  such.  And  if 
this  can  be  shown  concerning  its  outset,  its  subsequent  infaUibility  falls 
of  course. 

The  very  fact,  that  scripture  was  added  to  oral  teaching,  proves  that 
the  latter  was  .not  relied  on  as  an  infallible  method  of  perpetuating  the 
gospel.  And  if  tradition  was  thus  deemed,  by  inspired  men,  incompe- 
tent to  the  secure  transmission  of  the  gospel  itself,  it  is  gratuitous,  in- 
congruous, I  had  almost  said  absurd,  to  allege  that  it  could  transmit 
securely  the  interpretation  of  the  gospel. 

Besides  this  general  disproof  of  the  fundamental  tenet  of  the  Roman- 
ist, I  shall  adduce  particular  examples  of  both  the  aiding  and  the  cor- 
recting of  tradition  by  scripture. 

St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Thessalonians — "  we  beseech  you,  brethren, 


14 

that  ye  increase  more  and  more ;  and  that  ye  study  to  be  quiet,  and  to 
do  your  own  business,  and  to  work  with  your  own  hands,  as  we  com- 
manded yoii"*  About  a  year  before,  he  had  been  in  Thessalonica, 
and  had  "  commanded"  the  brethren  to  do  these  things ;  which  com- 
mandment became  of  course  a  Thessalonian  tradition.  Now,  he  adds 
scripture,  not  only  to  enforce,  but  to  specify  anew,  the  same  duties.  This 
tradition,  therefore,  was  not  beyond  the  aid  of  scripture,  and  of  course 
was  not  infalhble. 

In  his  first  epistle,  Paul  wrote  to  the  same  church — "  of  the  times  and 
the  seasons,  brethren,  ye  have  no  need  that  I  write  unto  you ;  for  your- 
selves know  perfectly,  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  so  cometh  as  a  thief  in 
the  night,  "f  This  they  "  knew,"  and,  as  the  apostle  supposed,  "  knew 
perfectly"  in  the  details  formerly  given  them,  which  1  shall  presently 
exhibit:  perhaps  he  meant,  '  this  ye  ought  to  know.'  This  information 
concerning  *'  the  day  of  the  Lord"  was  a  tradition  left  with  that  church ; 
and  it  was  duly  maintained  by  them,  as  far  as  the  apostle  was  informed, 
when  he  wrote  this  first  epistle ;  at  the  least,  it  ought  to  have  been  pre- 
served. But  when  he  writes  the  second,  he  declares  that  the  tradition 
had  neither  sustained  itself,  nor  proved  adequate  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  scriptural  epistle  he  had  just  before  sent  them.  This  second 
scripture,  therefore,  he  gives  them,  to  correct  the  tradition,  when  he 
discovered  that  they  '  knew  it  so  imperfectly.'  His  language  is — "  we 
beseech  you,  brethren  ....  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind,  or  be 
troubled,  neither  by  spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor  by  letter  as  from  us,  as  that 
the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand.  Let  no  man  deceive  you  by  any  means: 
for  that  day  shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling  away  first,  and 
that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition ;  who  opposeth  and  ex- 
alteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped ;  so 
that  he,  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is 
God.  Remember  ye  not,  that^  when  I  to  as  yet  with  you,  I  told  you 
these  things  J?"  J  Here  we  find  it  implied  that  a  church  might  "  not 
remember,"  might  forget,  and  that  very  soon,  a  tradition  "  told" 
them  by  an  apostle.  Here  also  we  see  that  an  apostle  sends  a  church 
a  scripture  to  correct  a  tradition  as  that  church  then  held  it.  Here, 
moreover,  we  learn  that  tradition  admitted  so  much  extraneous  matter, 
"  by  spirit,  by  word,  and  by  letter,"  if  the  "  letter"  means  a  forged  one, 
and  not  Paul's  first  epistle,  as  to  run  completely  astray  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  scripture  before  sent  them.  Here,  lastly,  we  discover 
that  a  tradition  not  only  might  be  "  not  remembered,"  but  actually  did 
fade  and  lose  its  accuracy,  in  a  church,  about  a  year  after  the  apostle 
had  left  it. 

This  second  example  is  from  an  epistle  which  contains  the  word  "  tra- 

*  1  Thess.  iv.  10,  11.  f  1  Thess.  v.  1,  2.       -  +2  Thess.  ii.  1—5. 


15 

ditions,"*  and  which  is  referred  to  on  that  account  by  Romanists.  The 
epistle  itself  proves  that  the  oral  part  of  these  "  traditions"  was  not  in- 
fallible, either  for  sustaining  itself,  or  for  interpreting  the  scripture  before 
given.  We  have  to  remark  also  that  St.  Paul,  as  soon  as  he  sent  the 
Thessalonians  a  scripture,  placed  it  among  the  traditions  or  revealed 
instructions  delivered  to  them — "stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions 
which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle."  From 
this  passage  it  is  obvious  that  scripture  had  as  good  a  right  to  interpret 
the  fresh  oral  teaching  of  the  apostle,  as  that  fresh  oral  teaching  could 
have  had  to  interpret  scripture.  And  the  other  passages  just  quoted 
inform  us  that  the  first  of  these  two  scriptures  was  used  to  aid,  and  the 
second  to  correct,  the  earliest  oral  tradition. 

Another  epistle  contains  this  word,  as  appealed  to  by  Romanists,  the 
first  to  the  Corinthians — "I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember  me 
in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances,  (traditions,  in  the  margin,)  as  I 
delivered  them  unto  you."t  This  commendation  is  well  regarded  by 
some  as  only  general  language,  not  to  be  understood  too  literally,  being 
qualified  by  subsequent  rebukes.  But  if  this  absolutely  restricted  sense  be 
disallowed,  a  little  investigation  will  show  the  accuracy  and  the  import  of 
the  distinction  here  made  by  the  apostle — however  these  brethren  may 
have  "  remembered  him  in  all  things,"  they  certainly  did  not  in  all 
things  "  keep  either  the  ordinances  or  the  other  traditions  he  had  de- 
livered to  them."  Far  from  it.  Tradition  betrayed  its  imperfection  in 
the  Corinthian  church,  as  it  had  in  the  Thessalonian.  Accordingly  St. 
Paul,  as  we  intimated,  follows  up  his  commendation  with  several 
weighty  censures  indicative  of  this  fact. 

One  of  these  follows  immediately  the  above  passage,  and  relates  to 
praying  or  prophesying  with  the  head  covered  or  uncovered,  according 
to  the  sex  of  the  speaker:  in  regard  to  which  the  apostle  writes — "if 
any  man  seem  to  be  contentious,  we  have  no  such  custom^  neither  the 
churches  of  God. "J  The  churches  then  had  a  "  custom,"  amounting  to 
a  tradition,  on  this  subject,  and  having  apostolic  sanction,  if  not  indeed 
of  apostolic  institution.  But  in  the  Corinthian  church,  this  custom  or 
tradition  had  become  so  obscure,  that  the  apostle  gave  them  a  scriptural 
declaration  to  correct  it,  and  in  fact  to  take  its  place. 

Another  censure,  in  the  same  chapter,  relates  to  no  less  a  subject  than 
the  eucharistic"  sacrament;  and  it  shows  that  tradition  was  but  weak 
even  when  connected  with  a  memorial,  the  great  christian  memorial. 
This  rite,  its  mode  of  celebration,  its  signification,  and  the  due  prepa- 
ration for  receiving  it,  were  of  course  made  known  to  every  church,  as 
soon  as  it  was  founded;  and  that  this  was  done  in  the  Corinthian 
church  is  expressly  recorded — "  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also 

•  2  Thesis,  ii.  15.     iii.  6.  f  1  Cor.  xi.  2.  t  1  Cor.  xi.  16. 


16 

I  delivered  unto  you,''''  (fee.  Here,  then,  we  might  presume,  was  a 
tradition  as  strong  and  as  perfect  as  possible:  it  certainly  was  fresh, 
since  Paul  had  left  Corinth  only  three  or  four  years.  Yet  he  writes 
— "when  ye  come  together  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat  the 
Lord's  Supper."  And  he  proceeds  to  deliver  to  them  by  scripture 
what  he  had  before  "deUvered"  orally,  but  what  they  had  "kept" 
so  imperfectly,  the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  its  meaning,  and 
the  duty  of  self-examination  before  partaking  of  it:  and  if,  as  some 
suppose,  the  irregularities  complained  of  arose  from  appending  a 
love-feast  to  that  ordinance,  he  gives  them  a  scriptural  command  to 
abolish  the  appendage — "  if  any  man  hunger,  let  him  eat  at  home."* 
How  decisive  are  these  examples  of  the  correction  of  tradition  by  scrip- 
ture! Their  tradition  concerning  the  very  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  "delivered"  once  in  full  by  the  apostle,  is  corrected  by  this 
canonical  epistle:  and  surely  tradition,  after  so  glaring  a  condemnation 
by  scripture,  can  never  claim  to  be  the  infallible  interpreter  of  its  own 
corrector.  Their  tradition  also  concerning  the  signification  of  the  rite 
is  corrected  by  this  scripture.  So  likewise  is  their  tradition  concerning 
the  due  preparation  for  it.  And  the  tradition  concerning  the  appendage 
of  love-feasts,  if  there  were  such  a  tradition  in  the  church  at  the  time, 
this  scripture  silences,  as  void  of  authority.  How  every  way  groundless, 
the  opinion  that  tradition  is  infallible! 

In  another  part  of  the  same  epistle,  the  Corinthian  brethren  are  very 
sharply  censured  for  the  irregular  use  of  their  extraordinary  gifts — 
"  If . . .  there  come  in  those  that  are  unlearned,  or  unbelievers,  will  they 
not  say  that  ye  are  mad  ?"f  That  the  apostles,  when  they  bestowed 
these  gifts,  gave  not  the  persons  thus  endowed  sufficient  directions  for 
their  orderly  use,  will  scarcely  be  maintained;  that  the  Corinthians  had 
been  so  instructed  must  be  further  presumed  from  the  fact  that  Paul 
resided  with  them  "  a  year  and  six  months,"  and  a  "  good  while"  longer.J 
These  directions  were  their  tradition  on  the  subject.  Yet,  in  a  very  few 
years,  it  became  so  feeble  as  to  leave  them  to  act  as  if  "  mad."  And  to 
correct  the  tradition  is  the  object  of  St.  Paul,  in  this  part  of  this  scrip- 
tural book. 

This  epistle  furnishes  yet  other  arguments  of  the  same  kind  to  the 
Protestant  cause — "  moreover,  brethren,  I  declare  [again]  unto  you 
the  gospel  which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  also  ye  have  received, 
and  wherein  ye  stand."  What  Paul  had  "  preached"  orally  he  now 
writes  to  them,  thus  giving  them  scripture  to  aid  or  secure  tradition, 
although  the  Corinthians  thus  far  "  stood"  in  it.  He  then  adds — "  by 
which  (gospel)  ye  are  saved,  if  ye  keep  in  memory  what  I  preached 
unto  you,"  or,  as  in  the  margin,  "  if  ye  holdfast  what  I  preached  unto 
you,"  plainly  intimating  that  their  traditional  "remembrance"  of  the 
*  1  Cor.  xi.  20—34.  f  1  Cor.  xiv.  23.  *  Acts  xviii.  11,  18. 


17 

gospel,  or  traditional  "hold"  upon  it,  might  fail.  The  fundamental 
points  of  the  "  gospel"  orally  given  them  are  then  briefly  stated — "  / 
delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  hov^^  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures,  and  that  he  was  buried, 

and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day  according  to  the  scriptures 

so  we  preach,  and  so  ye  believed:"*  this,  with  the  proofs  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  and  with,  doubtless,  the  doctrine  added  of  a  general 
resurrection,  was  the  "  gospel"  communicated  for  the  traditional  in- 
struction of  the  Corinthian  church;  and  as  yet  it  was  preserved  by  them. 
Why  then  docs  Paul  communicate  it  to  that  church  again,  and  in  writ- 
ing ?  himself  has  answered ;  '  lest  they  should  not  keep  it  in  memory, 
and  not  hold  it  fast,  securely' — some  among  them  having  already  main- 
tained "  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead."  Tradition,  far  from 
being  relied  on  as  infallible,  either  for  its  own  preservation,  or  for  pre- 
serving the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  "scriptures"  explained 
by  Paul  in  connexion  with  this  oral  "  gospel,"  received  thus  the  help  of 
a  New  Testament  scripture;  and  the  assistance  rendered  was  in  regard  to 
the  principal  christian  doctrines,  the  death  of  Christ  for  sin,  and  his  re- 
surrection, and  that  of  all  his  people.  Christian  revelation  in  a  form 
liable  to  decay  was  indebted  for  succour  to  christian  revelation  in  a 
permanent  form:  and  altogether  unreasonable  it  is  for  the  succoured  to 
claim  predominance  over  the  succourer.f 

Leaving  now  these  books  in  which  the  word  "  tradition"  occurs,  and 
which  have  alfordcd  ample  refutation  of  the  Romanist's  argument  built 
on  that  word,  and  ample  proof  of  the  supremacy  of  scripture,  I  proceed 
to  notice  some  further  examples  of  the  same  kind,  found  in  other  parts 
of  the  New  Testament.  Our  cause,  I  trust,  will  then  be  perfectly  se- 
cure. 

St.  Luke  says  to  Thcophilus,  to  whom  he  inscribes  his  gospel — that, 
as  many  had  undertaken  to  set  forth  the  things  believed  by  christians, 
as  they  were  "  delivered"  by  those  who  were  eye  witnesses  from  the 
beginning,  and  ministers,  "  it  seemed  good  to  him  also ....  to  ivrite  unto 
him  in  order"  or  distinctly — and  the  reason  he  gives  is,  that  Theophilus 
"  might  know  the  certainty  of  the  things  wherein  he  had  been  instruct- 
ed."J  This  person  had  by  tradition,  the  things  thus  "  delivered," 
whether  orally,' or  by  writings  not  scriptural;  yet  Luke  prepares  for 
him  this  scripture  on  the  same  topics.  And  why?  because,  as  that 
evangelist's  declaration  implies,  the  tradition  might  be  'uncertain;'  and 
because,  as  he  explicitly  asserts,  scripture  would  enable  his  friend,  and 
of  course  all  christians,  to  "  know  the  certainty  of  the  things  delivered 

•  1  Cor.  XV.  1— 11,  &c. 

-j-  This  passage,  from  1  Cor.  xv.,  may  receive  the  construction  tliat  the  Corinthians 
were  already  forgetting  tiiis  oial  "  gospel;"  but  the  milder  view  1  have  taken  is  sufficient 
for  my  argument. 

\  Luke  i.  1 — 4. 

3 


18 

traditionally  by  those  who  were  eye  witnesses  from  the  beginning/' 
Scripture  then  is  more  "  certain"  than  tradition,  more  '  firm  and  secure,' 
for  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  And  very  natural  it  was  that  the 
latter  should  receive  aid  from  the  former. 

A  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  affords  proof  that  tradition 
was  not  deemed  infallible  in  their  church  in  the  apostolic  age — "  And  I 
myself  also  am  persuaded  of  you,  my  brethren,  that  ye  also  are  full  of 
goodness,  filled  with  all  knowledge,  able  also  to  admonish  one  another. 
Nevertheless,  brethren,  I  have  written  the  more  boldly  unto  you  in  some 
sort,  3iS  putting  you  in  mind,  because  of  the  grace  that  is  given  to  me 
of  God,  that  I  should  be  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles," 
&c.*  Behold  here  the  condition  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  its  earliest 
and  purest  age !  Their  tradition  was  held  satisfactorily,  for  Paul  de- 
clares that  they  were  "  filled  with  all  knowledge,  and  able  to  admonish 
one  another."  But  does  he  regard  this  then  unimpeachable  Roman  tra- 
dition as  infallible,  beyond  all  uncertainty  and  failure?  Nothing  of  the 
kind,  nothing  that  will  bear  such  a  construction,  does  he  say.  On  the 
contrary,  though  not  the  founder  of  that  church,  he  uses  his  privilege 
as  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  at  large,  and  "  writes"  to  them ;  he  gives 
them  a  scripture,  for  the  express  purpose  of  "  putting  them  in  mind" — 
i.  e.  to  aid  their  tradition,  to  prevent  its  passing  out  of  their  minds--— 
which  implies  that,  without  scripture,  the  tradition  of  even  that  emi- 
nent church  might  have  faded  and  become  uncertain. — I  need  scarcely 
add,  that  this  scripture  to  the  Romans  is  full  of  important  doctrines  and 
precepts:  the  articles  of  original  sin,  justification  by  faith,  the  predesti- 
nation of  those  whom  God  foreknew,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  make  but 
part  of  its  contents. 

St.  Peter  writes  his  second  epistle,  both  to  put  the  brethren  "  in  re- 
membrance'^ of  things  which  they  "knew"  already,  and  in  which  they 
were  "  established,"  and  that  they  "  might  be  able  after  his  decease  to 
have  these  things  always  in  remembrance."!  That  apostle  therefore 
did  not  rely  on  tradition  for  preserving  his  testimony  of  "  these  things," 
more  particularly  after  his  expected  martyrdom,  but  set  forth  scripture 
to  aid  it,  nay,  we  may  assert,  as  the  fair  sense  of  his  language,  to  take 
its  place.  Most  of  the  Christian  scriptures  had  indeed,  by  this  time, 
been  written  and  circulated ; J  but  his  testimony,  as  that  of  a  principal 
witness  and  inspired  teacher,  was  of  high  importance.  So  far,  therefore, 
as  those  scriptures  contained  matter  equivalent  to  that  now  written  by 
Peter,  so  far  would  he  not  rely  on  tradition  to  keep  "  in  remembrance," 
either  before  or  "  after  his  decease,"  his  concurring  testimony.  And  so 
far  as  he  wrote  additional  matter,  not  already  on  the  inspired  record, 
so  far  would  he  not  rely  on  the  tradition  of  these  brethren,  though  they 

*  Rom.  XV.  15,  16,  17.  f  2  Pet.  i.  12—15.  \  2  Pet.  iii.  15, 16. 


19 

**  knew  and  were  established  in  the  present  truth,"  for  its  perpetuation. 
He  therefore  furnished  tlicm  and  the  whole  church  with  this  epistle, 
and  indeed  with  both  his  epistles,*  as  scriptural  and  effectual  reuicm- 
brancers. 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  St.  Paul  declares  that  they  "  had 
always  obeyed,  not  as  in  his  presence  only,  but  much  more  in  his  ab- 
sence ;"  yet  he  also  declares — "  to  ivrite  the  same  things  unto  you,  to 
me  indeed  is  not  grievous,  but  for  you  it  is  safe  ;"f  it  affords  you  se- 
cupity  or  "  certainty,"  the  Greek  word  "  safe"  being  kindred  with  that 
employed  by  St.  Luke  in  the  quotation  just  made.  A  body  of  Christians 
who  were  eminent  for  their  obedience  to  this  their  first  inspired  teacher, 
and  who  of  course  preserved  his  tradition  perfectly  thus  far,  are  in- 
formed that  it  is  scripture  that  makes  them  "safe."  And  the  scripture 
that  gives  them  this  information  is  decisive  concerning  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  declaring  that  he  was  "  in  the  form  of  God,"  and  was  "  equal 
with  God,"  and  that  "  every  knee  must  bow  to  him,"  and  "  every  tongue 
confess  that  he  is  Lord."  It  is  also  decisive  concerning  justification  by 
faith — "  not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but 
that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ."  On  these  high  doctrinal  sub- 
jects did  this  scripture  aid  tradition  of  the  best  quality. 

There  are  expressions  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  which  evince 
the  superiority  of  scripture  to  tradition,  as  a  secure  means  of  preserving 
truth.  St.  Paul  was  commissioned  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 
He  had  gathered  many  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  into  the  church  at 
Ephesus;  and,  as  he  remained  there  "three  years,"  and  "  declared  to 
them  all  the  counsel  of  God,"  they  must  have  known  and  understood  the 
nature  of  this  his  commission.  Is  not  this  so  probable  as  not  to  require 
further  proof?  If  so,  let  it  be  noticed  that,  when  afterwards  writing  his 
epistle,  he  says — "  if  ye  have  heard  of  the  dispensation  of  the  grace  of 
God  which  is  given  me  to  you-ward" — and  he  presents  at  the  same 
time  a  scriptural  detail  of  his  special  relation  to  the  Gentiles,  and  of  the 
divine  "  counsel,"  once  kCpt  secret,  to  make  them  "  fellow-heirs" — and 
of  this  scriptural  record  he  remarks,  "  whereby,  when  ye  read,  ye  may 
understand  my  knowledge  in  the  mystery  of  Christ."J  We  here  observe, 
in  the  first  place,  that  "  reading"  a  scripture  is  set  above  "  hearing" 
oral  instruction.-  In  the  next  place,  allowing  the  translation  ^^ifye  have 
heard,"  the  language  is  almost  sarcastic — 'if  you  retain  the  least  recol- 
lection of  this  important  communication,  if  it  made  a  lasting  impression 
on  you' — a  most  emphatic  intimation  that  the  light  of  tradition  had,  on 
this  peculiarly  interesting  subject,  become  very  feeble  in  the  church  at 
Ephesus,  and  required  scripture  to  aid  it,  perhaps  to  save  it  from  ex- 
tinction.    Nay,  if  we  read  the  passage,  as  do  some  translators,  though 

•  2  Pet.  iii.  1.  t  Phil*  "•  12.    iii.  i.  *  Eph.  iii.  2—4,  &c. 


20 

not  correctly  in  my  opinion,  "  seeing  ye  liave  heard,"  while  it  decides 
also  that  they  had  been  taught  previously  the  special  mission  of  Paul  to 
the  Gentiles,  it  still  places  traditional  "  hearing"  in  a  disadvantageous 
contrast  with  scriptural  "  reading" — its  implied  sense  is,  "  when  ye 
read"  this  scripture,  then  "  ye  may  understand"  the  matter  sufficiently, 
not  before.  Construe  the  passage  as  we  may,  it  adds  to  the  proofs,  now 
not  few  in  number,  that  scripture  regards  tradition  as  inferior  to  itself 
in  preserving  christian  revelations,  and  of  course  gives  no  countenance 
to  the  assertion  that  it  can  interpret  those  revelations  infallibly. 

The  case  of  the  Galatian  "  churches"  furnishes  some  of  the  strongest 
proof  of  the  position  I  am  establishing,  and  is  the  last  I  shall  adduce. 
Those  churches  are  severely  rebuked  by  St.  Paul  for  their  defection 
from  the  truth,  as  he  had  planted  it  among  them,  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
judaising  brethren ;  in  other  words,  for  the  gross  failure  of  their  tradi- 
tion. His  language,  in  various  parts  of  the  epistle  to  them,  is  to  this 
effect — "  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called 
you  into  the  grace  of  God  unto  another  gospeP — "  O  foolish  Galatians, 
who  hath  bewitched  you,  that  ye  should  not  obey  the  truth,  before 
whose  eyes  Jesus  Christ  hath  been  evidently  set  forth,  crucified  among 
you  ?" — "  are  ye  so  foolish,  having  begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye  now  made 
perfect  by  the  flesh  ?" — •"  now,  after  that  ye  have  known  God,  or  rather 
are  known  of  God,  how  turn  ye  again  to  weak  and  beggarly  elements 
whereunto  ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage  V' — "  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest 
I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labour  in  vain" — "  ye  know  how  ...  I 
preached  the  gospel  unto  you  at  the  first,  and  ye  .  .  .  received  me  as  an 
angel  of  God,  even  as  Christ  Jesus.  Where  is  then  the  blessedness  ye  ' 
spake  of  ?"~"  who  did  hinder  you,  (in  the  margin,  who  did  drive  you  - 
back,)  that  ye  should  not  obey  the  truth  ?' — "  I  desire  to  be  present 
with  you  now^,  and  to  change  my  voice ;  for  I  stand  in  doubt  of  you."* 
Behold  here  several  "  churches"  planted  by  the  great  apostle,  and  re- 
ceiving from  his  "  preaching"  the  pure  gospel — himself  "  calHng  them 
into  the  grace  of  God,"  "  setting  forth  before  their  eyes"  the  crucified 
Saviour,  and  "  bestowing  labour"  upon  them,  and  they  "  receiving  him 
as  an  angel  of  God,  even  as  Christ  Jesus,"  and  "  speaking  of  their  bless- 
edness !"  Behold  them  swerving  from  this  gospel — tradition,  though 
admirably  begun,  having  its  channel  overflown  with  strange  waters,  and 
failing  most  notoriously — and  that,  says  the  apostle,  "  so  soon !"  Behold 
scripture  resorted  to,  to  rectify  what  had  gone  so  monstrously  wrong 
through  the  fallibility  of  tradition  ! — It  cannot  be  necessary  to  search  for 
more  proofs  of  the  superior  value  of  the  written  word. 

Of  some  of  the  passages  that  have  been  now  referred  to,  as  well  as 
of  others  not  quoted,!  it  may  perhaps  be  said,  that  they  are  scripture 

•  c;al.  i.  6.  ill.  1,  3.  iv.  9,  11,  13,  14,  15,  20.  v.  7. 
\  I'arlicularly  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  John. 


21 

helping,  not  only  tradition,  but  such  also  of  the  other  scriptures  as  were 
then  already  given.  Of  this  I  am  aware ;  and  Protestants  may  freely 
admit  the  fact.  Scripture  was  not  complete  till  the  whole  of  it  was 
written;  and  as  Protestants  make  the  comparing  of  scripture  with  scrip- 
ture their  great  instrument  of  interpretation,  they  regard  each  book, 
when  it  was  written  and  published,  as  having  furnished,  not  only  an 
additional  record  of  the  things  revealed,  but  fresh  means  also  of  canoni- 
cal exposition.  In  this  sense,  we  allow  the  New  Testament  to  have 
been  imperfect,  both  as  a  volume,  and  as  its  own  interpreter,  till  all  its 
books  were  issued :  much  depended,  at  that  period,  on  the  inspired  bre- 
thren, and  on  the  oral  teaching  that  remained  pure.  But  tradition,  to 
be  infallible,  should  never  be  found  imperfect,  after  its  fountain  was 
^opened  in  the  church ;  if  at  any  time  it  require  or  admit  the  least  ex- 
traneous help  or  amendment — and  it  has  now  been  proved  that  it  often 
received  both — its  claim  to  infallibility  is  void. 

Should  the  ground  be  taken,  that  the  church  exercises  a  discrimi- 
nating authority  among  traditions,  retaining  only  those  deemed  sound, 
and  rejecting  the  rest — we  may  reply,  that  it  is  proper  for  any  church 
to  do  so,  but  this  does  not  make  the  tradition  so  revised  infallible;  it  is 
not  beyond  further  revision.  We  may  also  reply,  that  the  only  means 
of  revising  tradition  are  earlier  tradition  and  scripture — and  that  scrip- 
ture, as  we  have  seen,  was  used  by  the  apostles  for  revising  and  cor- 
recting the  earliest  tradition.  Scripture  then  is  the  final  standard,  the 
only  standard  that  is  beyond  question. 

If  it  be  objected,  that  tradition  may  fail  or  be  weak  in  some  particu- 
lar churches,  yet  be  infallible  in  the  church  at  large — I  answer,  that  I 
have  shown  that  there  is  no  proof,  particularly  in  scripture,  of  the  in- 
fallibility of  tradition  in  the  church  at  large — I  answer,  that  I  have 
shown  that  it  was  fallible  in  many  particular  churches,  nearly  all  to 
which  epistles  were  addressed ;  and  these  are  enough  to  present  the 
condition,  in  this  respect,  of  the  church  at  large — I  answer,  that  I  have 
shown  that  scripture  wa's  set  above  even  such  tradition  as  was  faultless, 
in  churches  perfectly  sound ;  a  fact  which  evinces  that  tradition  was 
not  only  amended  in  churches  casually  in  error,  but  was  not  trusted  in 
the  best  churches :  and  if  not  in  these,  it  certainly  was  not  in  the  church 
at  large — I  answer,  that  I  have  shown  that  even  faultless  tradition  was 
not  relied  on  in  the  early  Roman  church;  and  we  cannot  allow  that  the 
later  Roman  church,  however  it  aflfect  to  represent  or  to  govern  the 
church  at  large,  has  made  its  once  fallible  tradition  infallible. 

And  it  will  not  avail  the  Romanist  to  plead  a  distinction  between 
doctrines  and  the  other  branches  of  religion,  and  merely  allege  that  tra- 
dition has  been  kept  infallible  as  an  interpreter  of  the  former.  We 
have  seen  that  St.  Paul  used  scripture  to  aid  the  tradition  of  the  Co- 
rinthian church  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  the  death  of  Christ  for  sin, 


22 

and  of  his  resurrection  and  ours — and  to  correct  the  tradition  of  the 
Galatian  churches  in  regard  to  the  multifarious  doctrinal  errors  of  ju- 
daising.  We  have  seen  how  much  doctrine  St.  Paul  set  forth  in  a  scrip- 
tural form  for  the  benefit  of  the  early  Roman  church,  deeming  it  proper 
thus  to  "  put  them  in  mind,"  or  keep  alive  their  accurate  recollection, 
of  these  things,  though  their  traditional  knowledge  of  them  was  as  yet 
unobscured.  We  have  seen  that  St.  Paul  deemed  it  "safe"  to  give  the 
Philippian  church,  which  had  been  endoctrinated  by  himself,  and  which 
held  his  tradition  most  commendably,  a  scripture  asserting  the  doctrine 
of  our  Lord's  divinity,  besides  other  important  articles  of  belief.  We 
have  seen  that  St.  Luke  wrote  his  entire  gospel,  containing  much  doc- 
trine, that  a  Christian  might  "know  the  certainty  of  the  things  in  which 
he  had  been  instructed"  by  tradition.  Tradition  therefore  preserves 
doctrines  no  better  than  other  matters. 

We  may  now  safely  conclude  that  none  of  these  departments  of  tra- 
dition have  proved  infallible — and,  as  a  consequence,  that  no  special 
providence,  or  permanent  inspiration,  or  other  divine  interposition,  was 
pledged,  or  has  acted,  for  the  infallible  preservation  of  any  of  them 
among  Christians.  The  Being,  who  only  could  exert  the  power  required 
for  this  purpose,  has  taught  us,  in  his  written  word,  that  He  did  not 
exert  it,  but  that  traditions  pure  at  first,  as  coming  directly  from  the 
apostles,  very  soon  became  imperfect  in  various  churches,  and  of  course 
were  not  above  imperfection  in  any.  And  it  follows  as  an  unavoidable 
result — a  result  as  momentous  as  it  is  clear — that  no  one  who  believes 
that  written  word,  in  its  plain  and  obvious  sense,  can  also  believe  that 
the  traditions  we  speak  of  are  infallible :  to  maintain  this  is  to  contra- 
dict the  scriptures ;  to  agree  with  scripture,  that  proposition  must  be 
denied.     From  this  conclusion  I  see  no  escape. 

My  appeal  in  this  portion  of  the  argument  has  been  to  scripture  in 
its  common-sense  interpretation,  i.  e.  according  to  the  meaning  of  its 
language  deduced  in  conformity  with  ordinary  and  natural  principles — 
as  distinguished  from  any  interpretation  given  it  under  the  plea  of  ex- 
clusive or  special  authority  to  do  so,  whether  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 
or  any  other  church  or  body  of  men,  and  whether  under  the  guidance 
of  tradition  or  otherwise.  Besides  that  it  is  folly  to  assert  that  the  writ- 
ten words  are  but  empty  signs  and  marks,  indicating  the  letter  only  of 
the  bible,  not  indicating  its  sense — for  they  are  marks  and  signs  which 
in  their  very  nature  are  associated  with  meaning — Romanists  them- 
selves use  scripture  in  their  attempts  to  substantiate  the  alleged  infalli- 
bility of  their  church;  and  they  obviously  can  use  it  only  on  this  common- 
sense  principle  of  interpretation,  because  there  is  no  other  rule  till  that 
allegation  is  estabhshed.  The  Protestant  cause  has  now  made  precisely 
the  same  appeal  to  scripture,  and  has  there  found  that  tradition,  at  the 
very  best,  was  fallible. 


23 

It  is  due  to  the  subject  to  add,  that  the  fallibility  of  tradition,  though 
fatal  to  its  extravagant  claims,  does  not  imply  its  immediate  general 
corruption.  Hence  we  find  that,  so  far  as  the  traditions  of  the  apostolic 
age  remained  sound,  they  were  treated  by  scripture  with  the  greatest 
deference.  The  first  teaching  of  the  churches  was  oral,  and  for  some 
years  they  had  no  other.  And  when  scriptures  were  added,  they  recog- 
nised the  validity  of  all  the  traditional  gospel  which  as  yet  w^as  pure : 
so  that  the  written  gospel  took  its  place,  not  by  ejecting  it  entirely  or 
geiterally,  though  from  what  wc  have  seen  it  appears  to  have  done  so 
in  part,  but  as  a  consequence  of  its  natural  decay.  Of  this  recognition 
of  the  sound  traditional  gospel,  sometimes  perhaps  by  itself,  and  some- 
times as  combined  with  the  scriptures  then  beginning  to  be  published, 
I  shall  adduce  a  few  examples. 

St.  Paul  says  to  the  Thessalonian  church — "  we  beseech  you,  bre- 
thren, and  exhort  you  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  as  ye  have  received  of  us 
how  ye  ought  to  walk  and  to  please  God,  so  ye  would  abound  more  and 
more.  For  ye  know  what  commandment  we  gave  you  by  the  Lord  Je- 
sus"— "  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught, 
whether  by  word  or  our  epistle" — "  withdraw  yourselves  from  every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he 
received  of  us."  To  the  Colossian  church  he  writes — "  as  ye  have  re- 
ceived Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so  walk  ye  in  him;  rooted  and  built  up  in 
him,  and  stablished  in  the  faith  as  ye  have  been  taught,  abounding  there- 
in with  thanksgiving."  To  the  Philippian  church — "  those  things  which 
ye  have  both  learned,  and  received,  and  heard,  and  seen  in  me,  do." 
To  the  Roman  church — "  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  which 
cause  divisions  and  offences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have 
learned;  and  avoid  them."  St.  Jude  declares — "ye  should  earnestly 
contend  for  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints."  St. 
Peter  "  testifies" — "  this  is  the  true  grace  of  God  wherein  ye  stand." 
And  St.  John,  in  fixing  the  lasting  denunciation  of  scripture  on  the  error 
of  denying  the  Son,  enjoibs — "  let  that  therefore  abide  in  you  which  ye 
have  heard  from  the  beginning" — and  again,  "  this  is  the  commandment, 
that,  as  ye  have  heard  from  the  beginning,  ye  should  walk  in  it."* 

From  such  passages  we  learn  that  sound  christian  tradition  was,  in 
the  first  century,  regarded  as  divine  truth;  and  such  of  course  it  remain- 
ed as  long  as  it  continued  sound.  But  ample  proof  has  been  given,  from 
other  passages,  that  it  often  lost  its  soundness  in  a  few  years,  and  was 
aided  and  corrected  by  scripture:  and  this  amounts  also  to  scriptural  au- 
thority for  the  inference,  that  it  would  be  liable  to  greater  deterioration 
as  more  years  should  elapse — scripture  thus  confirming  what  has  already 

•  1  Thess.  iv.  1,  2.  2  Thess.  ii.  15.  Hi.  6.  Col.  :i.  6,  7.  Phil.  iv.  'J.  liom.  xvi.  17. 
Jude,  3.     1  Pet.  v.  12.     1  John,  ii.  24.     2  Johii,  6. 


24 

been  shown  from  the  nature  of  tradition  and  from  facts.  After  the 
death  therefore  of  the  inspired  men  who  could  decide  respecting  a  tra- 
dition when  it  was  doubted,  no  appeal,  or  no  final  appeal  remained  but 
to  scripture ;  nowhere  else  could  it  be  securely  ascertained  what  had 
been  "  heard  from  the  beginning."  The  record  even  of  a  tradition, 
made  by  the  Fathers  after  inspiration  had  ceased,  was  only  as  pure  as 
was  the  tradition  itself  at  the  time  it  was  so  recorded;  in  no  questioned 
case  could  it  be  absolutely  relied  on ;  and  if  scripture  threw  light  on  the 
disputed  point,  it  was  to  be  preferred,  not  only  for  its  greater  certainty, 
but  also  as  both  an  earlier  and  an  inspired  record  of  that  tradition.  If 
however  a  tradition  received  as  apostolical,  or  the  record  of  it  as  such 
by  a  Father,  was  nowhere  doubted  in  those  primitive  ages,  and  was  in 
no  respect  contrary  to  scripture,  it  had  sufficient  authority,  it  was  ac- 
credited revelation. 

But  there  may  be  doubts  concerning  the  interpretation  of  the  Fa- 
thers, in  their  uninspired  records  of  tradition.  We  hold,  for  example, 
that  episcopacy  has  ample  testimony  in  these  records ;  but  some  deny 
that  we  give  the  proper  meaning  to  the  language  of  the  Fathers  on  this 
subject.  How  far  such  an  objection  can  be  sustained  by  a  fair  con- 
struction of  their  writings,  is  not  included  in  my  present  inquiry.  But 
on  the  supposition — let  me  rather  say,  on  the  concession,  for  argument-'s 
sake,  that  the  doubt  is  not  gratuitous,  the  only  appeal  that  remains  is  to 
scripture. — So  when  the  Romanist  would  glean  from  some  of  the  Fa- 
thers the  slender  authority  they  may  seem  to  contain  for  denying  the 
equality  of  the  apostles  and  of  bishops,  and  for  asserting  the  supremacy  , 
of  St.  Peter  and  of  the  bishop  of  Rome — besides  objecting,  that  these  are 
not  the  earliest  Fathers,  and  that  the  tradition,  if  it  existed,  was  of 
course  late  and  impure — besides  showing  that  the  Romanist's  interpre- 
tation of  these  traditional  records,  such  as  they  are,  is  unsound  and  un- 
fair— besides  adducing  similar,  and  earlier,  and  better  traditional  au- 
thority of  an  opposite  tenor — we  appeal  to  scripture  as  the  final  arbiter ; 
and  show  that  Peter  had  neither  supremacy,  nor  even  primacy,  in  office, 
since  James  presided  in  a  council  when  he  was  present;  and  also  that  he 
had  not  supremacy  in  deciding  controversies,  since  at  Antioch  Paul 
"  withstood  him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed,"  because  he 
«'  walked  not  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel,"  and  gave 
him  a  doctrinal  lesson  of  much  importance,  "  before  them  all,"  and  with 
even  sharpness  of  censure.*  All  this  the  word  of  God  records  of  Peter. 
It  is  foreign  however  to  my  present  undertaking  to  enter  largely  into 
particular  illustrations. 

The  principles  involved  in  this  portion  of  my  argument  may  be  thus 
stated.     1.  If  any  tradition  be   in  anywise  contrary  to  scripture,  it  is 

*  Acts  XV.  6,  13,  19.     Gal.  ii.  11,  14,  &c. 


25 

void,  the  greater  authority  cancelling  the  less  when  in  opposition  to  it. 
2.  If  there  be  an  absolutely  unquestioned  tradition,  clearly  traceable 
to  the  apostolic  age,  the  matter  of  which  is  asserted  in  scripture  also, 
the  authority  in  the  case  must  be  accounted  two-fold ;  that  of  the  writ- 
ten word,  however,  being  from  its  nature  the  more  excellent  of  the  two. 
But  of  this  I  know  no  examples  that  will  be  allowed  to  be  perfect  now, 
though  there  were  several  a  few  centuries  ago ;  questions  having  then 
and  since  arisen  concerning  the  sense  of  various  passages  in  the  Fathers 
— questions  which,  though  they  existed  not  before  in  such  a  shape  as 
to  make  them  worthy  of  notice,  have  now  respectable  supporters:  the 
final  appeal,  beyond  that  of  the  due  construction  of  the  Fathers,  is,  as 
I  have  already  said,  to  scripture.  3.  If  there  be  an  absolutely  unques- 
tioned tradition,  the  matter  of  which  is  not  found  in  scripture,  or  be- 
lieved not  to  be  there,  yet  in  no  degree  contrary  to  scripture,  and  clearly 
traceable  to  the  apostolic  age,  it  must  be  regarded  as  having  such  au- 
thority without  scripture  as  belongs  to  the  case.  Of  this,  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  day  for  the  old  sabbath  will  probably  be  deemed  the 
best  example,  by  those  who  think  they  do  not  find  scriptural  warrant 
for  the  change.  Yet  even  this  example  is  not  perfect,  as  it  is  contro- 
verted by  some  Christians :  one  reply  is,  that  they  do  not  rightly  con- 
strue the  traditional  records  in  point,  or  do  not  allow  due  authority  to 
a  tradition  traceable  to  the  apostles  ;  but  another  and  better  reply  is, 
that  the  New  Testament  agrees  with  this  tradition,  as  it  affords  intima- 
tions that  the  Lord's  day  had  taken  the  place  of  the  old  sabbath  before 
that  volume  was  written. 

These  remarks  suggest  two  more.  The  first  is,  that,  happily  for 
Protestants,  no  part  of  their  creed  rests  on  the  insecure  basis  of  the  tra- 
dition we  have  described ;  they  can  appeal,  on  all  points,  to  the  infinitely 
superior  authority  of  scripture,  to  either  its  plain  assertions,  or  its  suf- 
ficient intimations :  scripture  contains  all  things  which  they  believe  ne- 
cessary to  salvation.  The  second  remark  is,  that,  from  its  natural  in- 
sufficiency, nothing  of  tradition,  that  is  not  absorbed  in  scripture,  re- 
mains absolutely  unquestioned ;  and  hence,  practically  speaking,  though 
we  consult  it,  and  especially  its  earlier  records,  as  we  would  similar 
authority  in  other  cases,  the  only  final  resort  is  to  scripture.  There 
only  can  we  find  a  secure  means  of  ascertaining  the  Rule  of  Faith — 
the  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  inspired  servants. 

If  it  be  objected  that  scripture  does  not  suffice  for  the  settling  of  dis- 
putes, I  answer,  neither  does  tradition,  neither  does  any  thing :  hence 
St.  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  among  whom  tradition  was  fresh,  and 
to  whom  he  sent  also  at  the  same  time  a  scripture — "if  any  man  be 
ignorant,  let  him  be  ignorant" — "  if  our  gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them 
that  are  lost" — and  St.  Peter  speaks  of  those  who  "  are  willingly  igno- 

4 


26 

rant  :"*  in  other  words,  there  are  mistakes  and  delusions  for  dispelling 
which  not  even  revelation  will  suffice.  I  further  answer,  that,  though 
the  providential  permission  of  error  is  a  mystery,  it  is  not  so  great  a  one 
as  the  providential  permission  of  evil :  and  there  is  no  more  infallible 
remedy  for  error,  than  there  is  for  sin ;  there  cannot  be,  as  long  as  the 
mind  and  the  will  are  free,  and  the  due  exercise  of  that  freedom  is  part 
of  our  probation.  The  discipline  of  the  church  was  indeed  to  be  in- 
flicted on  the  obstinate,  and  may  still  be,  for  error  as  well  as  for  sin — 
and  that,  on  the  principle  that  the  church,  being  "the  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  truth,"  is  under  obligation  to  maintain  doctrinal  as  well  as  prac- 
tical purity,  as  far  as  she  is  able.  This  the  church  has  also  a  right  to 
do,  for  her  own  peace.  This  the  church  has  a  right  to  do,  as  the  ma- 
gisterial expounder  of  christian  law.  This  the  church  has  a  further 
right  to  do,  because  whatsoever  and  whomsoever  she  justly  binds  or 
looses  on  earth,  they  are  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven.  But  this,  all  this, 
is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  claim  to  settle  a  controversy  concern- 
ing truth  on  the  principle  of  infallibility.  A  civil  legislature  or  magis- 
trate, representing  the  sovereignty  of  a  nation,  has  final  authority  in 
this  world,  yet  the  best  may  exercise  it  erroneously.f  And  though  the 
church  represents,  so  far  as  this  discipline  requires,  the  divine  sovereignty 
of  Christ,  yet  as  the  representative  is  but  human,  she  must  form  her 
decisions,  and  enforce  them,  under  the  consciousness  that  she  is  never 
beyond  the  liability  to  mistake. 

My  Rev.  Brethren, 

In  the  hope  that  the  remarks  now  offered  you  may  not  be  without 
their  value,  when  the  claims  of  the  church  of  Rome  are  brought  into 
notice,  let  me  ask  you,  when  meeting  such  an  exigency,  to  give  them  a 
place,  if  you  deem  them  worthy  of  it,  with  the  other,  more  elaborate 
and  more  learned,  arguments  on  the  subject.  The  extensive  range  of 
erudition  usually  brought  into  this  discussion,  when  conducted  with 

*  1  Cor.  xiv.  38.     2  Cor.  iv.  3.     2  Pet.  iii.  5. 

f  A  friend  of  the  highest  professional  eminence  allows  me  to  insert  the  following  re- 
marks. 

"  To  give  another  illustration.  A  judicial  tribunal,  acting  in  the  last  resort,  must 
act  with  authority  in  the  matter  in  controversy,  and  also  upon  all  questions  involved  in 
it.  This  is  not,  however,  on  the  principle  of  infallibility,  but  on  the  principle  of  order 
or  due  subordination  in  the  administration  of  justice.  It  does  not  preclude  the  correc- 
tion of  any  error  of  doctrine,  which  upon  subsequent  examination  the  sentence  may  be 
found  to  contain,  upon  its  application  to  other  cases — a  correction  which  can  never  be 
made,  if  the  virtue  of  the  sentence  is  held  to  reside  in  the  infallibility  of  the  tribunal. 
If  it  were  a  postulate  of  law,  that  a  judicial  tribunal  in  the  last  resort  is  infallible,  it  must 
follow,  that  unless  the  tribunal  were  equally  so  in  fact,  error,  even  involuntary  error, 
would  perpetuate  itself;  and  his  objection  appears  to  have  no  less  force  against  the 
imputed  infalhbiUty  of  the  Church." 


27 

calmness  and  dignity,  makes  it  difficult  to  present  the  controversy  to 
our  flocks  in  an  acceptable  and  effectual  manner,  however  circumstances 
require  it :  they  are  apt  to  feel  as  but  spectators,  distant  spectators,  of 
a  conflict  in  which  arms  are  wielded  which  they  have  never  "  proved." 
But  in  what  has  now  been  said,  the  issue,  and,  let  me  repeat  it,  the 
fundamental  issue,  is  brought  within  the  range  of  all  sound  under- 
standings which  have  submitted  themselves  to  the  faith  of  Christ. 

Permit  me  also  to  remind  you,  and  let  me  ask  you  to  remind  your 
flocks,  if  occasion  shall  require,  that  the  exercise  of  our  freedom  in  mat- 
ters of  faith,  or,  as  it  has  been  called,  the  right  of  private  judgment,  is 
part  of  our  probation — is  one  of  the  deepest  and  most  solemn  of  our  re- 
sponsibilities, for  our  conduct  under  which  God  will  most  assuredly  bring 
us  into  judgment — our  private  judgment  must  undergo  his  sovereign 
judgment.  I  will  not  detain  you  for  an  investigation  of  the  rules  for 
exercising  this  liberty  of  conscience  judiciously  and  safely.  It  belongs, 
however,  to  the  subject  before  us,  to  remark,  that  a  very  prominent 
rule  in  the  case  is — the  authority  of  the  Church — not  as  an  infallible 
judge,  but  as  much  less  fallible  than  any  of  her  members  individually — 
not  as  having  "  dominion  over  our  faith,"  but  as  the  guardian  "  helper 
of  our  joy" — not  as  a  "  mistress,"  but  as  "  the  mother  of  us  all."  Wild 
notions  of  the  right  of  private  judgment,  in  matters  of  religion,  are  fruit- 
ful of  mischiefs,  though  they  may  not  resemble  the  mischiefs  produced  by 
the  claim  of  the  Church  of  Rome  that  we  surrender  it.  And  Protest- 
ants are  especially  bound  so  to  exercise  this  right,  that  those  "  of  the 
contrary  part  in  this  matter  may  have  nothing  evil  to  say  of  them." 
While  they  reject  the  domination  of  an  usurper,  let  them  not  imagine 
that  there  is  no- principle  of  dependance  involved  in  the  conduct  of  the 
mind,  and  in  the  investigation  of  moral  truth  and  moral  certainty. 

A  due  appreciation  of  the  fact,  that  the  discreet  exercise  of  our 
judgment  in  articles  of  faith  is  part  of  our  probation,  will  guard  us 
against  yielding  to  the  scepticism  which  sometimes  tempts  us,  when  we 
find  that  only  moral  certainty  can  be  attained,  not  infallible  certainty, 
in  either  the  evidences  of  scripture,  or  its  interpretation.  Right  views 
also  of  this  probation,  the  duty  of  seeking,  discerning,  embracing  truth, 
though  beset  by  the  plausibilities  of  error,  will  show  the  propriety  of 
the  assertion, "  if  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  of  God."  It  is  no  begging  of  the  question,  but  the  induc- 
ing of  a  natural  inference,  to  assert  that  a  revelation  from  God  concern- 
ing sin  and  holiness  will  be  best  understood,  and  its  certainty  best  appre- 
hended, by  those  who,  other  qualifications  being  equal,  most  resemble 
God  in  character — for  these,  the  godly,  more  than  others,  will  see  these 
things  as  God  sees  them — though  the  proof  is  the  same  to  all,  the  godly 
have  superadded  this  peculiar  confirmation  of  their  faith.  The  gospel 
revealed  for  the  salvation  of  sinners  is  adapted,  by  the  Deity,  to  their 


28 

case ;  and  this  case  the  convinced  and  reclaimed  sinner  understands 
better  than  those  who  have  not  yet  thus  "  done  the  will"  of  their  hea- 
venly Father :  the  spiritual  discernment  he  has  acquired  by  spiritual 
experience  opens  to  him  a  testimony,  unperceived  by  other  inquirers, 
that  "  the  doctrine  is  of  God."  This  testimony  of  the  soul  to  divine  truth 
is  like  that  of  "  clay  to  the  seal." 


NOTE  FOR  PAGE  6. 

Tradition  may  mean — 

1.  The  thing  delivered  for  keeping',  or  the  subject  matter  communicated  or  trans- 
mitted.    This  is  the  usual  sense  of  the  word  in  scripture. 

2.  The  instrument  of  delivery  and  transmission — either,  1.  oral  communication — or, 
2.  written  and   especially  scriptural  communication.     (See  1  Pet.  i.  18.     Luke  i.  2.) 

3.  The  instruments^rs^  used,  of  either  of  these  kinds,  which  were  superior — or  those 
of  the  respective  kinds  subsequently  used,  which  were  inferior.  The  autographs  of  scrip- 
ture were  better  than  copies  of  them — and  the  first  oral  teaching  was  better  than  the 
immediate  repetition  of  it,  and  infinitely  better  than  most  of  the  unaided  later  repetitions 
ofit. 

4.  The  proof  o^  the  genuineness  or  soundness  of  either  of  these  instruments  at  any 
given  date — either,  1.  oral  tradition  attesting  its  own  continuing  soundness — or,  2.  oral 
tradition  attesting  the  soundness  or  genuineness  of  a  writing — and  a  modification  of  the 
latter  is,  both  oral  and  recorded  tradition  attesting  the  soundness  or  genuineness  of 
scripture. 

Here  are  seven  senses  of  the  word,  each  tradition  being  different  from  the  rest,  either 
in  its  nature,  or  in  consequence  of  the  difference  of  subjects  or  circumstances.  The 
word  is  used  also,  and  too  generally,  in  a  loose  manner.  The  author  fears  it  may  some- 
times have  been  so  used  in  the  Charge;  as  this  Note  is  the  result  of  reflections  and  in- 
vestigations subsequent  to  those  which  led  to  its  composition. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  oral  tradition  has  no  attestation  from  without  of  its  continued 
soundness;  having  no  witness  but  itself,  frail  as  this  sort  of  it  is;  the  record  of  an  oral 
tradition  showing  only  what  it  was  at  the  time  of  making  the  record,  not  what  it  was 
before — while  scripture  has  extraneous  attestation  of  its  genuineness,  that  furnished  by 
tradition,  of  the  least  fallible  kind,  and  both  oral  and  recorded.  These  facts  are  a  fur- 
ther illustration  and  proof  of  the  superiority  of  scripture. 


J 


■'>' 


1 

^^i 

■«l 

// 


^'**"^>»w 


